Just some stuff that comes across our desk and is worth listening to? The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth regarding the Chelsea Pitch Owners issue

Tuesday, 1 January 2013

New Year Update

With the new year underway, it is worth considering where things stand on stadium issues. Little has been heard from the club (we always think this a positive thing at the moment, no matter how frustrating) but things are certainly happening with the Earl's Court development.

CFCTruth have been looking into the residents at West Ken and Gibbs Green and their fight to have the land sale agreement between Hammersmith and Fulham and CapCo declared unlawful. Among three court challenges, they have issued proceedings for urgent consideration to be given by the court to the signing of the conditional land sale agreement that covers the two estates. They argue that the council were trying to hide the contents of the document and when they would sign it. Despite the claimant, who is a a resident of the estates, having lost his legal aid (a real David and Goliath battle, this one) they appear to have thwarted the signing of the deal until the court sits. Their challenge to the land sale is based on four grounds; unlawful consultation procedures, an unclear re-housing plan, breaches of human rights legislation and the most serious, that the demolition of the estates is a case of gerrymandering and bias.

If the residents are successful in having the land sale declared unlawful, there is no doubt that the whole Earl's Court plan will be thrown into some turmoil. The council won't be happy either because according to them, the deal is worth £225 million in cash and other housing provision. There are also investigations by both the police and Deloitte's into the conduct of officers during the case. It isn't pretty.

However, none of this guarantees a positive outcome for CFC. CapCo will be free, under the terms of the pre-agreement, to redraw the masterplan (a plan that is universally doubted for quality and achievability) and that may mean them coming back to Chelsea, who as we know have made several submissions during the planning process and clearly have designs and ideas for the site that also provide the possibility of Earl's Court remaining a major exhibition location. This last is something the exhibition industry is very keen to see. And of course, the club bring ready cash. This also runs alongside the story that Roman has been discussing the purchase of CapCo outright...more of which, we hope, anon.

Despite this emerging situation, we do still see people continuing to think that it is better to believe the council rather than the club over the expansion of Stamford Bridge. The wealth of data and information, including the very revealing minutes of the CPO board's meeting with the council seem not to change this attitude. One particularly ill-informed correspondent to a thread on Vital Football was even peddling the idea that LBHF had nothing to do with the CapCo EC development, rather that it is Kensington & Chelsea's deal. Another said that Abramovich was determined to find a site as far from Stamford Bridge as possible. Such ignorance and misinformation respectively is unhelpful and gets us nowhere.

There are critical issues to consider; that Chelsea moving to another site, be it EC or BPS will involve a land swap with Stamford Bridge. This sweetens the deal in both cases and enables the club to offer the sort of assurances that planning authorities will need as well as providing compensation to the owners of either site for the club occupying a huge lump of their valuable real estate. There is no scenario that will produce great profits for CFC or Abramovich. If the club had been successful in acquiring the entire Battersea development then perhaps that would be the case over a number of years. But CFC are not in that position at present so are trying to elbow their way in.

As we have said in the past, all of us would prefer a dream stadium that does what the club requires at Stamford Bridge. But it is clear now that even if the egress issues could be resolved, to expand adequately would require the acquisition of Oswald Stoll buildings. Consider that for a moment; if the charity were to acquiesce to such a sale (which we doubt; their response to our questions on the matter were extremely frosty) the club would have to buy the building and the land, demolish it and then provide over 150 homes for disabled servicemen somewhere in the area. It is hard to imagine that the residents would want to move far from where they are now and indeed, why should they? However, assume there is a piece of land nearby that can house them, there would then be the acquisition costs, the build costs, the planning and legal costs etc. and then the compensation for the residents etc. Acquiring Oswald Stoll would likely add £300 million to the bill. Then the club would need to demolish the Bridge, rebuild etc. and so we doubt there would be little change from a billion pounds with nothing coming back in return except over an extremely long period of time. People may believe Abramovich can afford this but equally, we do not think it reasonable to expect such a proposition to be engaged with considering the attendant risks and costs. We find it remarkable that fans should consider Abramovich's unwillingness to spend an unrewarded billion pounds on a project fraught with huge obstacles as evidence of his rapacious profiteering.

We will say again that fans and shareholders in CPO would do well to apply pressure in the right places rather than indulge in paranoid accusations against the club. An encouraging number of fans have made it clear that they understand the situation more since we began presenting the facts but too many still indulge in misinformation and conspiracy theories. It is time for fans to turn their energies to forcing the issue in favour of the club, rather than against it. The iron is getting warmer, and should it become hot in the High Court, Chelsea have to be in a position to strike....

That option is gone. The discussions are now, we understand, about Chelsea taking the power station and doing a land swap with SB. However, the company managing the development is led by a person very wedded to the original plan. The masters in Malaysia are waiting to see if that person can deliver...it may be late in the summer before anything conclusive is known.

If it's any help there's also a financial matter to be resolved. My brother-in-law is a building development lawyer who thinks that Seita still have to sort the specifics with finaces; the SB site would help them substantialy to get another foothold in London. Apparently this has some legs to it. Interesting!

Your article baseless and devoid of truth. 55-60K seater stadium is feasible withouit affecting any existing properties on Fulham Road and only those being effected are those within Chelsea Village complex as with any design to accomodate larger stadium. Oswald stoll does not need to be touched you are talking utter tosh. Check your sources carefully.

We are not going to rehash the very comprehensive data released by Chelsea. SB is an 11 acre site and a stadium of 60k requires almost twice that. We have no idea what sort of abhorrent, uncomfortable, botched stadium you have in mind. The council themselves have suggested the purchase of OS which should tell you everything you need to know. You also make enormous assumption; that the council are genuine in their desire to enable such a stadium at SB. You will see from this blog that they have had ulterior motives. The idea that they would countenance 60k at SB now is quite the most laughable theory imaginable.

LBHF does not believe and has never suggested that the acquisition of SOS is an essential pre requisite for the redevelopment of SB.

Since you have repeatedly misreported comments made in private meetings, please allow us to clarify the situation for your readers.

A question was put to CFC (and recounted to the CPO board) as to whether the club has enquired of SOS if it sees its future remaining in its present accommodation on site, or whether it is open to a possible redevelopment, either including the provision of modernised sheltered accommodation on site, or at an alternative site. The observation was made that the existing housing is of relatively low density for an inner city location and that any redevelopment of the site which included private housing could cross subsidise the costs of rebuilding the stadium.

It was stressed to the club that LBHF has no view or agenda on a redevelopment of SOS taking place and that the charity should not feel pressured into taking any action against its will. At the same time, it would be entirely normal for the club, like any party contemplating a major development, to speak with its neighbours.

I can assure you that the Council is totally serious and sincere in offering to work with the club and other stakeholders to facilitate expansion of the stadium.

Cllr Adam, we are aware of your feelings on this matter and you freely offer opinion but you have never accepted our invitation to answer questions. Firstly, let's be clear; we have not misrepresented any comments but have merely quoted from the minutes published on the CPO website.

However, we would like to know why the council, so keen to keep CFC in the borough are not prepared to support Chelsea's presence at EC when it would be a far more appropriate location for a new build and would free up SB for social housing opportunities? Of course, depending on the outcome of the High Court hearings you may well find yourself having to countenance something different there...

As for OS, are you suggesting that the OS site can be redveloped to not only provide the extra space for a stadium (mathematics tells you the existing CFC plot is not large enough for the desired capacity), but can also provide new housing for both existing residents as well as supply private housing that would subsidise the stadium? So how many private properties would be needed in order to cover the costs of a stadium, the purchase of the OSM, the rebuilding of homes - both for OS and the private residencies? It is very good of you to spend Mr Abramovich's money for him of course but logic dictates that what you propose doesn't add up. We have not, by the way, suggested that you have proposed pressurising the charity.

Other questions; would you agree that permitting, by whatever method, the construction of 55-60k stadium would require a total reversal of your planning policies of the past twenty years or so?

Since you believe that Mr Abramovich is, or should be prepared to spend hundreds of unrecoverable millions, have you considered the idea that he might provide the circa £225 million cash and housing provision to you in return for your support of a stadium at Earl's Court? Indeed, in their submission to the Seagrave Road planning application, CFC made an offer to do just that.....? It seems to us that as a partner local authority, it would have been better for you to join with one of your biggest residents to help them locate to EC since they would bring cash to the project, have the assets to provide fantastic services as part of CiL, are a huge contributor to the borough and you wouldn't have the evolving nightmare that is WK and GG estates. Surely that is the better option Cllr? We know CapCo were more than keen to engage in such a project....why not you? Or is the destruction of those two estates the primary aim?

I am afraid that you have misrepresented LBHF's position because you have implied LBHF believes acquiring SOS is a pre requisite for rebuilding SB. That is not the Council's view. Our enquiry related to whether development on SOS land could cross subsidise (not cover) the costs of rebuilding the stadium.

Regarding EC, professional advice received to date is that the optimal regeneration solution in terms of providing new private and social accomodation and permanent employment is a combination of housing and commercial use, not a stadium. For similar reasons, a stadium was not seen to be the best use of the Battersea site.

Please could you clarify what you think should happen at WKGG? Is your proposal that the estates should remain untouched, or that they be demolished to make way for a stadium and the residents transplanted to SB? Do you think the latter proposal would be popular with the residents' groups whose campaign you claim to champion?

Your point regarding planning policy is the biggest red herring of all. Between 1986 and 2006 the Council was not even controlled by the same political party as now, so there is no implicit reason for continuity on a whole range of planning issues in the Borough. Add in the need to respond to current social, economic and demographic trends and there is clearly a need to consider questions of planning policy on their merits and not on the basis of outdated precedents.

We do not "champion" the residents' cause...merely view their battle with interest..and any subsequent effect it has on the use of EC and CapCo's desire to do business with the club. We are sure a solution that involved leaving people in their homes at WKGG would be possible...or at least introducing at the worst an element of voluntary displacement....who is to know? We certainly don't. But the development has to be seen in the context of those estates and thus we report it with interest.

Your EC advice was not about a Stadium..we are more than aware of how those professional advisors work to briefs. CFC's advisors have a very different view.

Battersea was about money. Setia look covetously at CFC too if truth be told. Everybody is aware of the political dimension of these two sites but that can only prevail for so long.....You have largely failed to answer the questions...rather you have neatly sidestepped them.

As for planning policy...all Cheslea fans know what your policy is for Champion's League games. Planning policy and planning regulations- upon which your predecessors have fallen back upon to refuse past CFC expansion - are two different things of course. CFC have to abide by regulations whilst also negotiating your policy...policies, for one reason or another, they are clearly reluctant to trust. Their report on expansion addresses regulation along with doubts over policy. Talk is cheap isn't it Cllr? It is no good you getting cross with us for reporting the facts when it is in fact CFC with whom you as a council have consistently failed to cooperate over the years.

And finally on OS. Can you explain how a 60k stadium requiring 20 acres can fit into an 11 acre plot? You and we all know OS is necessary both for space and egress. Which is why it is being discussed.

The opinion of professional experts is that housing and commercial use creates the biggest "regeneration multiplier". You have commented that Battersea was all about money. Quite. The residual land value of the Sethia scheme was higher than CFC's bid because Sethia's proposals generate a greater development value for the site, allowing them to bid more for the land.

As you well know, the restriction on capacity for later stages of the CL is driven by UEFA's requirement for extra media space and the knock on effect for safe access and egress. LBHF will look at any proposals to tackle this issue on their merits.

In the very hypothetical scenario that the courts do block the EC master plan, an alternative scheme would need to be agreed. I am not clear why you think that makes it more likely that LBHF would support its land being redeveloped as a football stadium?

How are you "sure" that a 60k stadium could be built without displacing the residents and why do you think residents would acquiesce in their "voluntary displacement" to make way for it?

We are grateful for your engagement but you must read what we say; we were very clear in our last blog that a win for WKGG residents did not mean CFC would be successful either. But we do believe we know quite what an appeal, in a land swap with SB (there is your regeneration multiplier) a stadium holds for CapCo.. Further, we also said we didn't know for certain that a stadium does not require WKGG but we know that we are discussng a scenario where residents had won a right to retain their homes, CFC's proposals would by definition need to avoid them.

As for LBHF's position; we are certain your officers have drawn up option papers should the residents scupper the CLSA. Further, there will be a very clear idea of what, hypothetically of course, LBHF would demand of CFC. Pragmatism is the watchword for councils right now as you are acutely aware....one door may close but another opens and in this case, LBHF does have options. Indeed, theoretically, it wouldn't surprise us if there was a sneaking hope among some that the residents are successful...

You claim to be a lifelong fan who has been going to games since childhood.If so, why your vitriolic hatred towards anyone who expresses a wish to stay at Stamford bridge?Just stick with me here for a moment. Say in a parallel universe a proper stadium architect (ie not the club chairman's failed architect son) produces a scheme which people can see clearly achieves a better capacity and looks fab.Would you then promote that scheme?Or still try to sell your spiritual home to the highest bidder?I know transparency is not on your list of priorities for 2013 but try to answer this question honestly, thank you

"Transparency is not on your list of priorities", bit rich coming from someone who's posting as "anonymoous" isn't it? Oh and before you come back with a smart remark, yes I know I posted anonymously as well but I'm not the one bitching about 'transparency'.

We have been explicitly clear that we would all consider staying at SB to be preferable. But not at any cost. We have discussed the matter with architects, one of whom was indeed commissioned to come up with ideas...needed OS and involved one end being a bit like the Aviva Stadium in Ireland. And aside from egress, the planning nightmares that would undoubtedly ensue etc. costs are massively prohibitive which whilst we as fans may think isn't a problem for Abramovich, simply have to be as part of the business model.

Nope. Not them. If you knew anything or had any dealings in the matter you would know precisely who we are talking about. Some time ago we referred to the conversation and the curious way in which their commission came about...i.e. not from the club. We have our ideas as to who got them involved of course...

What makes you think that dropping a new 65k stadium on a housing estate at the northern part of the Earls' Court Master Plan (near the A4) will create less planning issues and risk than redeveloping Stamford Bridge with a Council supporting the latter iniative? Also if you cannot substantiate your facts and are unwilling to divulge which "architects" you have discussed these issues with - how on earth can you represent the truth - all you pedal are inuendos and incorrect facts.

We fear you are projecting somewhat.If you have read this blog, you will have seen constant caution on our part with respect to any projects that might begin to emerge at EC. We are more than aware of the issues, both with residents and the two councils. The alleged "support" of expansion at Stamford Bridge is, in our view, merely a device to exclude proper consideration of CFC's involvement at EC. The club have made repeated attempts to offer extremely generous solutions there. The council's whipping up of opposition to the share sale is now clearly shown to have been in order to thwart the club. It is one thing for the council to say they "support" expansion but have never once been able to offer solutions to the very real problems Chelsea have demonstrated, not to mention the council's historic record. What astonishes us is that the council is apprently keen to help Chelsea create a stadium in a space half the size necessary, with chronic access issues and a very dense population who would be outraged at such a development (not to mention enormous CP) yet are unwilling to join with them in creating a stadium on a designated development site a few hundred yards away, citing plannning objection as the reason?

As for the architect; in acquiring information, we take great care to protect those giving it. Sometimes, we cannot even use it since doing so would reveal sources -frequently it is the kind of information that is known to very few.We think it is enough to let it be known that one of the ideas floating around is an Aviva style stadium. Others will know of this too of course. We also think it relevant to mention that as far as we understand it, the idea was commissioned outside of the club. You are not bound to believe nor lend credence to anything we say. We are not a newspaper, a campaign group seeking your support nor a representative of any party other than ourselves as fans.

Maybe to you and some others but I'm sure it's equally unacceptable to just as many. Awful stadium design with a joke at one end of it. People already criticise the size of the Shed End at SB saying it makes the ground 'unbalanced' yet you support building something even more ridiculously out of scale.

I would be very upset an "Aviva-style" stadium was ever created, but luckily that, and a stadium on the site of SB, seems very unlikely. It's very interesting reading this space, and I look forward to hearing more, although I don't choose to believe all of it as a lot of it seems very contentious.

55 acres of the 77 acre Earls Court site is TfL freehold and approximately 22 Acres LBHF freehold.

Advice I received from a procurement lawyer is that TfL should not dispense with a tendering process due to the fact that a CapCo subsidiary already have a lease over part of the site. The CapCo subsidiary trading leases of EC1 and EC2 aren't worth much due to restrictive user clauses and short lease terms (29 years in the case of EC1) and can be extinguished by CPO.

The only party who could raise the issue of requiring TfL to tender would be a disgruntled developer, such as CFC, who could claim they are being denied the opportunity to bid for the contract. If CFC took legal action, TfL would have to follow the correct tendering procedure.

The TfL Board have decided nothing and there is still time for CFC to force a tendering process, if CFC is serious about wanting TfL's 55 acres.

Thank you RichardWe have indeed highlighted the role that Boris (aka tfl) has in this process as well as the length of the lease on that land. The mayor came under fire in questions to the Assembly last year from a member defending the WKGG residents. Boris chose to hold fire on answering, preferring to defer to the consideration process his office must give the master plan. He was accused of certain politically underhand motives.....but that is something that these big London Developments are drenched with....

We would be surprised if CFC were unaware of this route. Furthermore, we expect they, like the rest of us, are curious to discover what happens in the High Court over the two estates. But thank you for your clarifications which I am sure readers of this blog will be interested to read.